Bannareddy & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors.

2. Similarly, after the perusal of the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.5, there exist contradictions with regard to the incident and the role played by the different accused persons. The trial court has correctly arrived at a conclusion on this aspect. Further, it is to be noted that, although the above witnesses have stated that there were several eye witnesses to the above incident who intervened to stop the assault, except P.W.1 and P.W.13, other witnesses have turned hostile. Apart from the other victims, P.W.1 remains the sole witness to the said incident, but it is to be noted that the statements given by all of them are not in conformity with each other, rather differ on material points regarding the commission of the act itself. In the light of this, it is not appropriate to place reliance on these statements. [Para 18] [630-E-G]

3. Another major contradiction in the prosecution’s version, as rightly noted by the trial court, is the statement of P.W.14, who according to the eye witnesses had intervened in the said fight, as it was happening in the vicinity of his house. But, in clear contravention to the above version, P.W.14 states that he was out of station on the said date and on returning back to the village at night around 11.00 pm he came to know about the said incident. [Para 19] [630-H; 631-A]

4. It is to be noted that certain actions of the victims were inexplicable drawing our suspicion specifically the behavior of the victim after the incident. It is an admitted fact that after the said incident the victims were taken to the Government Hospital. As P.W.5 sustained simple injuries on his right shoulders thereby he was not referred for any further treatment. P.W.2 and P.W.3 having sustained injuries in their head were referred to the KIMS Hospital for further treatment. But the trial court noted that no documents or certificate regarding the admission or treatment of the victims to this effect were placed on record. The trial court rightly pointed out that P.W.19 who treated the victims both in the well reputed KIMS Hospital and later in Multi Speciality Hospital, admitted that KIMS Hospital is well equipped to treat the victims, then it is unclear why were the victims asked to shift to Multi Speciality Hospital. No documents were produced to clarify the same. The medical evidences produced by the victims prove that, they had not sustained any fatal injuries. In such circumstances, it is quite suspicious as to why were the victims shifted from KIMS Hospital to Multi Speciality Hospital, particularly, P.W.5, in spite of not being referred by any medical officer got himself admitted to KIMS Hospital and later to Multi Speciality Hospital. The trial court thereby noted that the victims were trying to generate incriminating evidences against the accused appellants. [Para 21] [631-D-H]

5. Coming further to address the guilt of the accused under Section 149, the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of all the accused persons. Although the overt acts of certain accused such as accused no.1 (Bannareddy), accused no. 2 have been mentioned in the statements of the victims and other witnesses. But no mens rea or actus reus could be attributed towards the rest of the accused persons to establish their guilt under Section 149 of the IPC. [Para 22] [632-A-B]

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court should not have re-appreciated evidences in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities. No specific assertion could be proved regarding the role and involvement of the accused persons. Further, certain actions of the victim-respondents themselves are dubious, for instance admitting themselves later in a Multi-speciality hospital without proper cause. [Para 27] [633-C-E]

Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 11 SCC 186; Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 : [2011] 1 SCR 929 – referred to.